Miss Lucy
Try free
← All judgments

M/S. Piramal Health Care Ltd vs Commissioner Of Central Excise, ...

Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal30 January 2015

Ratio decidendi

The rule this decision rests on

The Cenvat Credit Rules, 2004 do not permit an assessee who has discharged duty on the same clearance through both Cenvat credit (RG-23A) and subsequently by cash to retain the double payment; where duty has been discharged twice on one liability, the State is not entitled to retain both amounts, and the excess must be refunded to the assessee.

Written by Miss Lucy from the judgment below, not taken from a headnote.

Judgment

As delivered

IN THE CUSTOMS, EXCISE AND SERVICE TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNALSOUTH ZONAL BENCH AT CHENNAIE/S/41726/2014 and E/41471/2014

[Arising out of Order-in-Appeal No.CHN-EX-CUS-001-APP-040/2014 (M-I), dated 17-03-2014 passed by the Commissioner of Central Excise (Appeals), Chennai]

M/s. PIRAMAL HEALTH CARE LTD. APPELLANT

Versus

COMMISSIONER OF CENTRAL EXCISE, CHENNAI RESPONDENT

Appearance:

For the Appellant Ms. K. Ramya Adv.

For the Respondent Shri B. Balamurugan AC (AR)

CORAM:

Honble Shri D.N. Panda, Judicial Member

Date of hearing/decision 30-01-2015

FINAL ORDER NO. 40114 / 2015

Per D.N. Panda:

The appellant is engaged in the manufacture of organic compounds. They cleared certain quantity of raw materials in DTA and paid Central Excise Duty amounting to Rs.1,77,262/- vide their RG-23A Register on 30.04.2010 and 30.11.2010 instead of paying through Cash/PLA as required under Rule 3 (4)(b) of the Cenvat Credit Rules,

2004. They also paid the same through cash on 19.08.2011 along with interest of Rs.36,133/-. For such double discharge of liability i.e., firstly through Cenvat Account and later by cash, they filed a refund claim with the Department on 20.10.2011, which ought to have been filed on 20.10.2010. Therefore such claim was rejected on the ground of time bar but allowing the claim to the extent of Rs.8,389/-. Interest of Rs.36,133/- was imposed followed by penalty of Rs.1,77,262/-. Levied for the lapse. Such action of Adjudicating authority was confirmed by Commissioner (Appeals) in his order. Hence, the appeal by the appellant is to set aside the impugned order.

2. From the above facts, record reveals that duty liability of Rs.1,77,262/- has been doubly discharged with interest of Rs.36,133/-State is not expected to realize the same amount of duty twice. Therefore, one such duty is to be refunded to the appellant. Accordingly, appellant is entitled for the refund of Rs.1,68,872/- and discharge the liability from Cenvat account. But for the irregularities committed by the appellant penalty payable is reduced to Rs.50,000/- (Rupees Fifty Thousand only) and appeal is partly allowed. Stay application is disposed of accordingly.

(Dictated and pronounced in open court)

(D.N. PANDA) JUDICIAL MEMBER

ksr 07-02-2015

DRAFT Remarks

I II III

Date of dictation 30.01.2015

Draft Order - Date of typing 03.02.2015 06.02.2015

Fair Order Typing 07.01.2015

Date of number and date of dispatch 09.02.2015

4 E/S/41726/2014 and E/41471/2014

This page reproduces a public judgment and a summary of it. It is research material, not legal advice, and it is no substitute for advice from an advocate on your own facts.

Research this judgment with Miss Lucy

Ask what it holds, what has followed it, and what it means for your matter — in plain English, with the citations.

Try Miss Lucy free